Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow-growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient-related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2-sample rank-sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess survival. RESULTS: Of 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25-44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST. CONCLUSIONS: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib (CheckMate 214): a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3, CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with intermediate or poor risk, previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be used to further describe the benefit-risk profile of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled, CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by risk status into favourable, intermediate, and poor risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), and EuroQol five dimensional three level (EQ-5D-3L) instruments. The coprimary endpoints of the trial, reported previously, were overall survival, progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients who had an objective response in those categorised as at intermediate or poor risk. PROs in all randomised participants were assessed as an exploratory endpoint; here we report this exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but is now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 847 (77%) were at intermediate or poor risk and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=425) or sunitinib (n=422). Median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 23·0-27·4). PROs were more favourable with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib throughout the first 103 weeks after baseline, with mean change from baseline at week 103 for FKSI-19 total score being 4·00 (95% CI 1·91 to 6·09) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -3·14 (-6·03 to -0·25) for sunitinib (p<0·0001), and for FACT-G total score being 4·77 (1·73 to 7·82) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -4·32 (-8·54 to -0·11) for sunitinib (p=0·0005). Significant differences were also seen for four of five FKSI-19 domains (disease-related symptoms, physical disease-related symptoms, treatment side-effects, and functional wellbeing) and FACT-G physical and functional wellbeing domains. However, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups at week 103 in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue rating scale (VAS) scores, with mean change from baseline to week 103 of 10·07 (95% CI 4·35 to 15·80) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6·40 (-1·36 to 14·16) for sunitinib (p=0·45). Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab reduced risk of deterioration in FKSI-19 total score (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·46-0·63), FACT-G total score (0·63, 0·52-0·75), and EQ-5D-3L VAS score (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63-0·89) and UK utility scores (0·67, 0·57-0·80). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab leads to fewer symptoms and better HRQoL than sunitinib in patients at intermediate or poor risk with advanced renal cell carcinoma. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. METHODS: A total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.002), which met the prespecified criterion for superiority (P≤0.0148). The objective response rate was greater with nivolumab than with everolimus (25% vs. 5%; odds ratio, 5.98 [95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72]; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% of the patients receiving nivolumab and in 37% of the patients receiving everolimus; the most common event with nivolumab was fatigue (in 2% of the patients), and the most common event with everolimus was anemia (in 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 025 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01668784.).

Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): final results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865747. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1-21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0-21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7-not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7-18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·53-0·83]; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·41-0·62]; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% [13-22] with cabozantinib vs 3% [2-6] with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 [15%] in the cabozantinib group vs 12 [4%] in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 [13%] vs 7 [2%]), fatigue (36 [11%] vs 24 [7%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 [8%] vs 3 [1%]), anaemia (19 [6%] vs 53 [17%]), hyperglycaemia (3 [1%] vs 16 [5%]), and hypomagnesaemia (16 [5%] vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications. FUNDING: Exelixis Inc.

A phase I study of muscadine grape skin extract in men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: Safety, tolerability, and dose determination.

BACKGROUND: New therapies are being explored as therapeutic options for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) who wish to defer androgen deprivation therapy. MPX is pulverized muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia) skin that contains ellagic acid, quercetin, and resveratrol and demonstrates preclinical activity against prostate cancer cells in vitro. METHODS: In the phase I portion of this phase I/II study, non-metastatic BRPC patients were assigned to increasing doses of MPX (Muscadine Naturals. Inc., Clemmons, NC) in cohorts of two patients, with six patients at the highest dose, using a modified continual reassessment method. Initial dose selection was based on preclinical data showing the equivalent of 500 to 4,000 mg of MPX to be safe in mouse models. The primary endpoint was the recommended phase II dosing regimen. RESULTS: The cohort (n = 14, 71% Caucasian, 29% black) had a median follow-up of 19.2 (6.2-29.7) months, median age of 61 years, and median Gleason score of 7. Four patients had possibly related gastrointestinal symptoms, including grade 1 flatulence, grade 1 soft stools, and grade 1 eructation. No other related adverse events were reported and one patient reported improvement of chronic constipation. Six of 14 patients came off study for disease progression (five metastatic, one rising PSA) after exposure for a median of 15 months. One patient came off for myasthenia gravis that was unrelated to treatment. Seven patients remain on study. The lack of dose-limiting toxicities led to the selection of 4,000 mg/d as the highest dose for further study. Median within-patient PSADT increased by 5.3 months (non-significant, P = 0.17). No patients experienced a maintained decline in serum PSA from baseline. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that 4,000 mg of MPX is safe, and exploratory review of a lengthening in PSADT of a median of 5.3 months supports further exploration of MPX. Both low-dose (500 mg) and high-dose (4,000 mg) MPX are being further investigated in a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, dose-evaluating phase II trial.

Renal cell carcinoma histologic subtypes exhibit distinct transcriptional profiles.

Molecular profiling of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) tumors of patients in a clinical trial has identified distinct transcriptomic signatures with predictive value, yet data in non-clear cell variants (nccRCC) are lacking. We examined the transcriptional profiles of RCC tumors representing key molecular pathways, from a multi-institutional, real-world patient cohort, including ccRCC and centrally reviewed nccRCC samples. ccRCC had increased angiogenesis signature scores compared with the heterogeneous group of nccRCC tumors, while cell cycle, fatty acid oxidation/AMPK signaling, and fatty acid synthesis/pentose phosphate signature scores were increased in one or more nccRCC subtypes. Among both ccRCC and nccRCC tumors, T effector scores statistically correlated with increased immune cell infiltration and were more commonly associated with immunotherapy-related markers (PD-L1+/TMBhi/MSIhi). In conclusion, this study provides evidence of differential gene transcriptional profiles among ccRCC versus nccRCC tumors, providing insights for optimizing personalized and histology-specific therapeutic strategies for patients with advanced RCC.

Highly variable timing renders immunotherapy efficacy and toxicity impractical biomarkers of one another in clinical practice.

Background: A useful clinical biomarker requires not only association but also a consistent temporal relationship. For instance, chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and epidermal growth-factor inhibitor-related acneiform rash both occur within weeks of treatment initiation, thereby providing information prior to efficacy assessment. Although immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-associated immune-related adverse events (irAE) have been associated with therapeutic benefit, irAE may have delayed and highly variable onset. To determine whether ICI efficacy and irAE could serve as clinically useful biomarkers for predicting each other, we determined the temporal relationship between initial efficacy assessment and irAE onset in a diverse population treated with ICI. Methods: Using two-sided Fisher exact and Cochran-Armitage tests, we determined the relative timing of initial efficacy assessment and irAE occurrence in a cohort of 155 ICI-treated patients (median age 68 years, 40% women). Results: Initial efficacy assessment was performed a median of 50 days [interquartile range (IQR) 39-59 days] after ICI initiation; median time to any irAE was 77 days (IQR 28-145 days) after ICI initiation. Median time to first irAE was 42 days (IQR 20-88 days). Overall, 58% of any irAE and 47% of first irAE occurred after initial efficacy assessment. For clinically significant (grade ≥2) irAE, 60% of any and 53% of first occurred after initial efficacy assessment. The likelihood of any future irAE did not differ according to response (45% for complete or partial response vs. 47% for other cases; P=1). In landmark analyses controlling for clinical and toxicity follow-up, patients demonstrating greater tumor shrinkage at initial efficacy assessment were more likely to develop future grade ≥2 (P=0.05) and multi-organ (P=0.02) irAE. Conclusions: In contrast to that seen with chemotherapy and molecularly targeted therapies, the temporal relationship between ICI efficacy and toxicity is complex and bidirectional. In practice, neither parameter can be routinely relied on as a clinical biomarker to predict the other.

Immunomodulatory response to neoadjuvant nivolumab in non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Novel perioperative strategies are needed to reduce recurrence rates in patients undergoing nephrectomy for high-risk, non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We conducted a prospective, phase I trial of neoadjuvant nivolumab prior to nephrectomy in 15 evaluable patients with non-metastatic ccRCC. We leveraged tissue from that cohort to elucidate the effects of PD-1 inhibition on immune cell populations in ccRCC and correlate the evolving immune milieu with anti-PD-1 response. We found that nivolumab durably induces a pro-inflammatory state within the primary tumor, and baseline immune infiltration within the primary tumor correlates with nivolumab responsiveness. Nivolumab increases CTLA-4 expression in the primary tumor, and subsequent nephrectomy increases circulating concentrations of sPD-L1, sPD-L3 (sB7-H3), and s4-1BB. These findings form the basis to consider neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for high-risk ccRCC while the tumor remains in situ and provide the rationale for perioperative strategies of novel ICI combinations.

Validation of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) as a prognostic biomarker in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) is associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) outcomes across different solid tumors, particularly in non-small cell lung cancer. Data regarding the prognostic and/or predictive role of LIPI in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are still scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether LIPI could be predictive of survival in mRCC patients. METHODS: We used patient level data from three different prospective studies (NIVOREN trial: nivolumab; TORAVA trial: VEGF/VEGFR-targeted therapy (TT); CheckMate 214: nivolumab-ipilimumab vs sunitinib). LIPI was calculated based on a derived neutrophils/(leukocyte-neutrophil) ratio > 3 and lactate-dehydrogenase >upper limit of normal, classifying patients into three groups (LIPI good, 0 factors;LIPI intermediate (int), 1 factor;LIPI poor, 2 factors) and/or into two groups (LIPI good, 0 factors;LIPI int/poor, 1-2 factors) according to trial sample size. Primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In the Nivolumab dataset (n = 619), LIPI was significantly associated with OS (LIPI-good 30.1 vs 13.8 months in the LIPI int/poor; HR= 0.47) and PFS (HR=0.74). In the VEGF/VEGFR-TT dataset (n = 159), only a correlation with PFS was observed. In the CheckMate214 dataset (n = 1084), LIPI was significantly associated with OS (nivolumab-ipilimumab OS LIPI good vs int/poor: HR=0.55, p < 0.0001; sunitinib: OS LIPI good vs int/poor: 0.38, p < 0.0001) in both treatment groups in univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment-LIPI correlated with worse survival outcomes in mRCC treated with either ICI or antiangiogenic therapy, confirming LIPI's prognostic role in mRCC irrespective of systemic treatment used.

Screening assay for blood vessel maturation inhibitors.

In cancer patients, the development of resistance to anti-angiogenic agents targeting the VEGF pathway is common. Increased pericyte coverage of the tumor vasculature undergoing VEGF targeted therapy has been suggested to play an important role in resistance. Therefore, reducing the pericytes coverage of the tumor vasculature has been suggested to be a therapeutic approach in breaking the resistance to and increasing the efficacy of anti-angiogenic therapies. To screen compound libraries, a simple in vitro assay of blood vessel maturation demonstrating endothelial cells and pericytes association while forming lumenized vascular structures is needed. Unfortunately, previously described 3-dimensional, matrix based assays are laborious and challenging from an image and data acquisition perspective. For these reasons they generally lack the scalability needed to perform in a high-throughput environment. With this work, we have developed a novel in vitro blood vessel maturation assay, in which lumenized, vascular structures form in one optical plane and mesenchymal progenitor cells (10T1/2) differentiate into pericyte-like cells, which associate with the endothelial vessels (HUVECs). The differentiation of the 10T1/2 cells into pericyte-like cells is visualized using a GFP reporter controlled by the alpha smooth muscle actin promoter (SMP-8). The organization of these vascular structures and their recruited mural cells in one optical plane allows for automated data capture and subsequent image analysis. The ability of this assay to screen for inhibitors of pericytes recruitment was validated. In summary, this novel assay of in vitro blood vessel maturation provides a valuable tool to screen for new agents with therapeutic potential.

Chronic Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including colitis. Growing evidence suggests proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) increase the risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Given the pathophysiological overlap between IBD and ICI colitis, we sought to evaluate the relationship between PPI use and ICI colitis in mRCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of adult patients who received ICI therapy for mRCC between 2015 and 2018 at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center affiliated hospitals. Clinical characteristics, oncological outcomes, ICI colitis details, and PPI use details were collected by manual chart review. The diagnosis of ICI colitis was made via biopsy when available, or by clinical criteria (symptoms and response to immunosuppressive therapy) when biopsy specimens were unavailable or inconclusive. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the potential contribution of PPIs to ICI colitis. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients received ICI therapy for mRCC, of which 16 (9.1%) were diagnosed with ICI colitis. Patients with ICI colitis presented with elevated stool lactoferritin and calprotectin and a wide range of endoscopic and histologic findings. There were no significant differences between patients with and without ICI colitis in age, gender, medical comorbidities, RCC history, and overall survival. However, exposure to ipilimumab and PPI use were more frequently observed in patients with ICI colitis than those without. In univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses, exposure to ipilimumab and chronic use of PPIs > 8 weeks were significantly associated with ICI colitis. CONCLUSION: In addition to ipilimumab use, chronic use of PPIs may be associated with ICI colitis in patients with mRCC.

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab in Patients with High-risk Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade represents a novel approach for potentially decreasing the risk of recurrence in patients with nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In this early phase clincal tiral, we evaluated the safety and tolerability of neoadjuvant treatment with the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab in patients with nonmetastatic high-risk RCC. Nonprimary endpoints included objective radiographic tumor response rate, immune-related pathologic response rate, quality of life alterations, and metastasis-free and overall survival. In total, 17 patients were enrolled in this study and underwent surgery without a delay after receiving three every-2-wk doses of neoadjuvant nivolumab. Adverse events (AEs) of any grade occurred in 14 (82.4%) patients, with two (11.8%) experiencing grade 3 events. Ten (58.8%) patients experienced an AE of any grade potentially attributable to nivolumab (all grade 1-2), and no grade 4-5 AEs occurred regardless of treatment attribution. The most common AEs were grade 1 fatigue (41.2%), grade 1 pruritis (29.4%), and grade 1 rash (29.4%). All evaluable patients had stable disease as per established radiographic criteria, with one (6.7%) demonstrating features of an immune-related pathologic response. Quality of life remained stable during treatment, with improvements relative to baseline noted at ≥6 mo postoperatively. Metastasis-free survival and overall survival were 85.1% and 100% at 2 yr, respectively. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we evaluated the safety and tolerability of preoperative administration of three doses of the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab in patients with clinically localized high-risk renal cell carcinoma. We demonstrated the safety of this approach and found that, although most patients will not experience a radiographic response to treatment, a subset may have features of an immune-related pathologic response.

A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of Initial Treatment Choice in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Prior to the Immunotherapy Era: The MaRCC Registry Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (MaRCC) Registry provides prospective data on real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with mRCC and no prior systemic therapy were enrolled at academic and community sites. End of study data collection was in March 2019. Outcomes included overall survival (OS). A survey of treating physicians assessed reasons for treatment initiations and discontinuations. RESULTS: Overall, 376 patients with mRCC initiated first-line therapy; 171 (45.5%) received pazopanib, 75 (19.9%) sunitinib, and 74 (19.7%) participated in a clinical trial. Median (95% confidence interval) OS was longest in the clinical trial group (50.3 [35.8-not reached] months) versus pazopanib (39.0 [29.7-50.9] months) and sunitinib 26.2 [19.9-61.5] months). Non-clear cell RCC (21.5% of patients) was associated with worse median OS than clear cell RCC (18.0 vs. 47.3 months). Differences in baseline characteristics, treatment starting dose, and relative dose exposure among treatment groups suggest selection bias. Survey results revealed a de-emphasis on quality of life, toxicity, and patient preference compared with efficacy in treatment selection. CONCLUSION: The MaRCC Registry gives insights into real-world first-line treatment selection, outcomes, and physician rationale regarding initial treatment selection prior to the immunotherapy era. Differences in outcomes between clinical trial and off-study patients reflect the difficulty in translating trial results to real-world patients, and emphasize the need to broaden clinical trial eligibility. Physician emphasis on efficacy over quality of life and toxicity suggests more data and education are needed regarding these endpoints.

From Basic Science to Clinical Translation in Kidney Cancer: A Report from the Second Kidney Cancer Research Summit.

The second Kidney Cancer Research Summit was held virtually in October 2020. The meeting gathered worldwide experts in the field of kidney cancer, including basic, translational, and clinical scientists as well as patient advocates. Novel studies were presented, addressing areas of unmet need related to different topics. These include novel metabolic targets, promising immunotherapeutic regimens, predictive genomic and transcriptomic biomarkers, and variant histologies of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). With the development of pioneering technologies, and an unprecedented commitment to kidney cancer research, the field has tremendously evolved. This perspective aims to summarize the different sessions of the conference, outline major advances in the understanding of RCC and discuss current challenges faced by the field.

Treatment-free Survival after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy versus Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 42-Month Results of the CheckMate 214 Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients discontinuing immuno-oncology regimens may experience periods of disease control without need for ongoing anticancer therapy, but toxicity may persist. We describe treatment-free survival (TFS), with and without toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analyzed from the randomized phase III CheckMate 214 trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 550) versus sunitinib (n = 546) for treatment-naïve, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). TFS was estimated by the 42-month restricted mean times defined by the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints defined from randomization: time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was subdivided as TFS with and without toxicity by counting days with ≥1 grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). RESULTS: At 42 months since randomization, 52% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 39% of sunitinib intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive; 18% and 5% surviving treatment-free, respectively. Among favorable-risk patients, 70% and 73% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and sunitinib patients were alive; 20% and 9% treatment-free. Over the 42-month period, mean TFS was over twice as long after nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk (6.9 vs. 3.1 months) and three times as long for favorable-risk patients (11.0 vs. 3.7 months). Mean TFS with grade ≥3 TRAEs was a small proportion of time for both treatments (0.6 vs. 0.3 months after nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk, and 0.9 vs. 0.3 months for favorable-risk patients). CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for aRCC spent more survival time treatment-free without toxicity versus those on sunitinib, regardless of risk group.